1. World in the Balance: Directed by Chris Schmidt, Released 2004
2. This film describes the growing problems resulting from the growth of China’s population and economy. With the world’s largest population by far, China has immense environmental impact. As people in China prosper from the growing economy, they are beginning to demand a way of life more like that of the rest of the developed world. This is having profound consequences for the environment. China uses coal as its main power source, both industrially and residentially. Their coal producing plants are not particularly clean either. In addition, China is having rapid growth of their vehicle fleet as more people demand cars. The resulting pollution is having negative effects in the health of those in China’s cities, and the pollution is even being tracked across the Pacific Ocean to the United States. Besides the fact that the car industry is growing rapidly in China, they do not uphold the same standards as Europe or the U.S. regarding car emissions, so each car they have is more polluting. This is starting to cause huge asthma rates as well as other respiratory problems in China which are killing thousands each year at this point, with signs that the situation will get worse. As China industrializes further, they are also discovering the water being used by industry is detracting from their ability to produce food. Industry gets more say because it makes more money, and as such gets more water rights. Meanwhile the farmers struggling to feed China are as poor as they have ever been.
3. There is a plethora of sustainability problems inherent in this film. In the political realm, it is clear that businesses are given preferential treatment over the general public. Additionally, there is a lack of leadership stepping up to recognize environmental problems even though it is clear that they are having a detrimental impact on the nation. Furthermore, there ought to be something the United States could do politically since the pollution is making its way across the pacific. Along the same lines, there should be legal recourse that the citizens could take against the government or the companies that are polluting so heavily. The U.S. should also be able to take recourse for the pollution that is damaging the U.S. all the way from China. Economically, farmers are not making enough to survive. This is unsustainable because as farmers leave their fields to get jobs in the cities, there are now less producers of food while the population still grows. Additionally, since the growing middle class of China demands more goods, it pushes their economy to produce more than they can in an environmentally sustainable fashion. In the technological spectrum, China could easily manufacture the technologies necessary to make their cars much cleaner, as well as their factories and the like. However, they choose not to for economic reasons. Almost more importantly, if China, the huge producer and market that it is, were to push for more sustainable technologies, it would likely cause a huge upsurge in sustainable research and innovation. It has become well recognized that while increasing the efficiency of technologies is all well and good (with the exception of the Jevons paradox) it is decreasing consumption that is truly key to creating a sustainable planet. In that regard, the behavior of the Chinese citizenry needs to be steered in a more sustainable direction, especially with respect to cars. They already have the infrastructure to use bikes as primary travel and mass transit could be very useful as well. However, the current social ideal is to have and use a car, because that is the way Americans live. With proper education, this notion might be curtailed.
4. The part of the film that was most compelling was the interviews with the Chinese citizens. These were compelling because it quickly became apparent that the citizens were very happy with the growing economy. It also became clear that they largely were happy because they were starting to get lives resembling those in the west. The movie makes a point, whether it is overt or not, that if everyone were to live as we do in America, it would “shatter the environment.” As such, we cannot simply tell the Chinese to clean up their act, but must lead by example in cutting back on our own use of cars and becoming altogether much more environmental. Additionally, we went through a horribly non-environmental industrial period, but it was many years ago and on a smaller scale. We should help the Chinese to make the industrial transition in a much more environmental manner.
5. There was one part of the film that was not as particularly convincing and that was the part where they described the pollution drifting across the Pacific Ocean. While I do not think this was false information, they did not make any compelling arguments for why this was bad. The film made it seem like it was a relatively small amount that came over, and even if this is an indication for just how much pollution they are spewing out, it does not convince me that this is necessarily a problem for us here, which is clearly what they are trying to get across. I certainly believe that it is an indication of a problem, and it will cause global problems, primarily climate change, but this would not necessarily hold of any viewer.
6. This film inspires a few interests. For one, it leaves the viewer wondering if other developing nations are doing any better. For example, is India putting out the same level of pollution per capita? True, China is the largest nation in the world, but even if its problems are solved, other nations can still spoil the environment. On the other hand, if other developing nations are doing particularly well, one wonders if their methodology might be applied to China. Secondly, what communication has there been between the U.S. and China on the issue if any, or are American businesses making so much money off of the sale of Chinese goods that they are pressuring the government not to step in? The exact political situation is called into question. Furthermore, if China is not willing to curtail their pollution, what steps could the rest of the world take to try and force them to? Perhaps trade organizations like the WTO could actually step in and do some good by applying pressure to China and others to develop cleanly.
7. I feel that this film is best targeted to academic audiences. The film is relatively well done and could hypothetically be shown to any audience, but I feel that if shown to an audience that was not well equipped to think about the film critically, they may simply build up resentment for China. Anti-Chinaism is not the point of the film, but this might be lost on some people. For the academic audience, one of the advantages of the film is that it could serve several different academic audiences. It could be considered and economic film as well as environmental. While it is environmentally (or sustainably) focused, it might serve as a warning to economists that the market is not always the best mechanism when unchecked. Hopefully economic academic circles would be willing to look at the film for its values and would not deem it a simple attack on capitalism.
8. While the film does not make specific suggestions at solutions, it definitely leans in the political direction. It makes a point of saying that this is a global issue, not just a Chinese issue, and as such we need to make agreements with China to help them become a cleaner nation and to reduce world emissions and pollution on both sides. After all, they are largely trying to emulate our previous growth and so we are somewhat responsible for making sure they can transition in a manner that sustainable.
9. The film would probably be more valuable if it extended the Chinese situation to growth in other developing nations. True they are not as large an example, but it is not like China is the only industrializing nation and they are not the only polluters. The kind of lifestyle, with cars and the like is growing elsewhere and the video could have done better in showing how this is a global issue, as previously mentioned.
World in the Balance: China Revs Up
An annotation by Evan Beauvilliers1. World in the Balance: Directed by Chris Schmidt, Released 2004
2. This film describes the growing problems resulting from the growth of China’s population and economy. With the world’s largest population by far, China has immense environmental impact. As people in China prosper from the growing economy, they are beginning to demand a way of life more like that of the rest of the developed world. This is having profound consequences for the environment. China uses coal as its main power source, both industrially and residentially. Their coal producing plants are not particularly clean either. In addition, China is having rapid growth of their vehicle fleet as more people demand cars. The resulting pollution is having negative effects in the health of those in China’s cities, and the pollution is even being tracked across the Pacific Ocean to the United States. Besides the fact that the car industry is growing rapidly in China, they do not uphold the same standards as Europe or the U.S. regarding car emissions, so each car they have is more polluting. This is starting to cause huge asthma rates as well as other respiratory problems in China which are killing thousands each year at this point, with signs that the situation will get worse. As China industrializes further, they are also discovering the water being used by industry is detracting from their ability to produce food. Industry gets more say because it makes more money, and as such gets more water rights. Meanwhile the farmers struggling to feed China are as poor as they have ever been.
3. There is a plethora of sustainability problems inherent in this film. In the political realm, it is clear that businesses are given preferential treatment over the general public. Additionally, there is a lack of leadership stepping up to recognize environmental problems even though it is clear that they are having a detrimental impact on the nation. Furthermore, there ought to be something the United States could do politically since the pollution is making its way across the pacific. Along the same lines, there should be legal recourse that the citizens could take against the government or the companies that are polluting so heavily. The U.S. should also be able to take recourse for the pollution that is damaging the U.S. all the way from China. Economically, farmers are not making enough to survive. This is unsustainable because as farmers leave their fields to get jobs in the cities, there are now less producers of food while the population still grows. Additionally, since the growing middle class of China demands more goods, it pushes their economy to produce more than they can in an environmentally sustainable fashion. In the technological spectrum, China could easily manufacture the technologies necessary to make their cars much cleaner, as well as their factories and the like. However, they choose not to for economic reasons. Almost more importantly, if China, the huge producer and market that it is, were to push for more sustainable technologies, it would likely cause a huge upsurge in sustainable research and innovation. It has become well recognized that while increasing the efficiency of technologies is all well and good (with the exception of the Jevons paradox) it is decreasing consumption that is truly key to creating a sustainable planet. In that regard, the behavior of the Chinese citizenry needs to be steered in a more sustainable direction, especially with respect to cars. They already have the infrastructure to use bikes as primary travel and mass transit could be very useful as well. However, the current social ideal is to have and use a car, because that is the way Americans live. With proper education, this notion might be curtailed.
4. The part of the film that was most compelling was the interviews with the Chinese citizens. These were compelling because it quickly became apparent that the citizens were very happy with the growing economy. It also became clear that they largely were happy because they were starting to get lives resembling those in the west. The movie makes a point, whether it is overt or not, that if everyone were to live as we do in America, it would “shatter the environment.” As such, we cannot simply tell the Chinese to clean up their act, but must lead by example in cutting back on our own use of cars and becoming altogether much more environmental. Additionally, we went through a horribly non-environmental industrial period, but it was many years ago and on a smaller scale. We should help the Chinese to make the industrial transition in a much more environmental manner.
5. There was one part of the film that was not as particularly convincing and that was the part where they described the pollution drifting across the Pacific Ocean. While I do not think this was false information, they did not make any compelling arguments for why this was bad. The film made it seem like it was a relatively small amount that came over, and even if this is an indication for just how much pollution they are spewing out, it does not convince me that this is necessarily a problem for us here, which is clearly what they are trying to get across. I certainly believe that it is an indication of a problem, and it will cause global problems, primarily climate change, but this would not necessarily hold of any viewer.
6. This film inspires a few interests. For one, it leaves the viewer wondering if other developing nations are doing any better. For example, is India putting out the same level of pollution per capita? True, China is the largest nation in the world, but even if its problems are solved, other nations can still spoil the environment. On the other hand, if other developing nations are doing particularly well, one wonders if their methodology might be applied to China. Secondly, what communication has there been between the U.S. and China on the issue if any, or are American businesses making so much money off of the sale of Chinese goods that they are pressuring the government not to step in? The exact political situation is called into question. Furthermore, if China is not willing to curtail their pollution, what steps could the rest of the world take to try and force them to? Perhaps trade organizations like the WTO could actually step in and do some good by applying pressure to China and others to develop cleanly.
7. I feel that this film is best targeted to academic audiences. The film is relatively well done and could hypothetically be shown to any audience, but I feel that if shown to an audience that was not well equipped to think about the film critically, they may simply build up resentment for China. Anti-Chinaism is not the point of the film, but this might be lost on some people. For the academic audience, one of the advantages of the film is that it could serve several different academic audiences. It could be considered and economic film as well as environmental. While it is environmentally (or sustainably) focused, it might serve as a warning to economists that the market is not always the best mechanism when unchecked. Hopefully economic academic circles would be willing to look at the film for its values and would not deem it a simple attack on capitalism.
8. While the film does not make specific suggestions at solutions, it definitely leans in the political direction. It makes a point of saying that this is a global issue, not just a Chinese issue, and as such we need to make agreements with China to help them become a cleaner nation and to reduce world emissions and pollution on both sides. After all, they are largely trying to emulate our previous growth and so we are somewhat responsible for making sure they can transition in a manner that sustainable.
9. The film would probably be more valuable if it extended the Chinese situation to growth in other developing nations. True they are not as large an example, but it is not like China is the only industrializing nation and they are not the only polluters. The kind of lifestyle, with cars and the like is growing elsewhere and the video could have done better in showing how this is a global issue, as previously mentioned.